Sam Ruby, Mon, 18 Feb 2013 14:34:35 -0500:
> Whether all of the existing restrictions in the Polyglot document are
> necessary, or indeed if they are sufficient, is the discussion we
> should be having.
+1
One such thing that I have been thinking about lately is use of
<![CDATA[ ]]> inside <style> and <script>. Though the bug has a
slightly blurry name/description, I filed bug 20201 about this in
December.[1] However, I reluctantly chose to accept Jirka’s argument
against allowing it. But we should perhaps look at that issue again.
Please speak out if you agree. ;-)
We have accepted that <![CDATA[ ]]> is not used inside <style> and
<script>. And, while it slightly encourages some best practices to have
that restriction, it also prevents - or at least makes it difficult -
to auto-convert documents with inline scripts to polyglot markup.
So personally, in addition to what the spec says today which describes
what to do when <![CDATA[ ]]> is not used, I lean towards adding rules
for how one may also use <![CDATA[ ]]> in <style> and <script>.
And in fact, I remember that Lachlan Hunt, who objected to Polyglot
Markup, also put questions marks around the forbiddance of <![CDATA[
]]>. And, as well, Henri made some (almost correct, at first, and then
correct) remarks about the consequences of not allowing <![CDATA[ ]]>,
in this recent round of debate about polyglot.
If used correctly, then it seems to me that the use of <![CDATA[ ]]>
doesn't cause much more DOM difference (perhaps it rather creates less
difference) between XML and HTML than the requirement to use both
xml:lang and lang.
[1] https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20201
--
leif halvard silli